Why does Omega driver say "Catalyst Omega 6.05" and not "6.5"?

tbessie · Jun 3, 2006, 02:23 AM

On my XP box, when I bring up the "Advanced" settings for my screen properties for the Omega driver, and go to the "Options" tab, it says "CATALYST Version Omega 6.05". Given that this driver is supposed to be based on Catalyst 6.5, what does the "6.05" correspond to?

- Tim

Spyre · Jun 3, 2006, 02:37 AM

Same thing.

Tipstaff · Jun 3, 2006, 07:20 AM

It's a mistake in the CX2K_RAD_OMEGA.inf file. There are 2 ways to correct this:

1) First go into the C:\Program Files\Radeon Omega Drivers\v3.8.252\2KXP_INF folder. Then open up the CX2K_RAD_OMEGA.inf file with notepad, and do a search for this section:

[ati2mtag_SoftwareDeviceSettings]

Under that section you will see this listing:

HKR,, Catalyst_Version,,"Omega 6.05"

Just change that to "Omega 6.50", and reinstall the driver.

OR

2) Open up regedit (start, run, regedit), and do a search for Omega 6.05. Then simpley change the listing to Omega 6.50.

Personally I would change the listing using regedit, and do the change to the inf file too. If you ever need to reinstall the drivers later then you won't have to do the registry change as well.

**temeteus82** · Jun 3, 2006, 09:02 AM

I think that ATi sould use two digit numbers that marks the month ...
Its all linear then from X.01 to X.12

Partizan · Jun 3, 2006, 09:35 AM

I think the label 6.05 is actually correct, because we get driver versions like this:
6.01, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07, 6.08, 6.09, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12

That would be more appropriate designation.

[EDIT]
Temeteus82 was faster.

Spyre · Jun 3, 2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temeteus82

I think that ATi sould use two digit numbers that marks the month ...
Its all linear then from X.01 to X.12

If that were accurate then explain the 5.13 drivers released last year?

Partizan · Jun 3, 2006, 09:50 AM

Well, he is right, ATI just made more drivers, so x.01-x.12, x.13, x.14...

Spyre · Jun 3, 2006, 10:18 AM

If you think there are 13 months in a year I suggest going back to school. Its number of driver release and theres no reason for it to be either 01 or 1 since its just a number.

OldBuzzard · Jun 3, 2006, 11:14 AM

ATI's driver numbering scheme is 'normally': Y.MM. Y=last digit of the year and MM=month.

However, in 2005, they did release one 'extra' driver on 21 December (kinda like a Christmas gift

) which is why we have the 5.13 drivers.

Spyre · Jun 3, 2006, 11:22 AM

It's nothing to do with the month its just the release number, just so happens that there are usually 12 releases a year of the drivers with rare exceptions.

Omegadrive · Jun 3, 2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tipstaff

It's a mistake in the CX2K_RAD_OMEGA.inf file.

No is not, I already said in the Readme file 4 drivers ago that I will be using the "correct" logical numbering system instead of ATI's screwed number logic .

So instead of 6.1, with me u get 6.01, which is basically the same thing, so when the change from Sep to Oct comes, you will see the normal transition of 6.09 > 6.10, instead of the mathematially incorrect 6.9 > 6.10

Tipstaff · Jun 3, 2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omegadrive

No is not, I already said in the Readme file 4 drivers ago that I will be using the "correct" logical numbering system instead of ATI's screwed number logic .

So instead of 6.1, with me u get 6.01, which is basically the same thing, so when the change from Sep to Oct comes, you will see the normal transition of 6.09 > 6.10, instead of the mathematially incorrect 6.9 > 6.10

Oops... Sorry, Omega. I completely forgot about that.

**temeteus82** · Jun 3, 2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omegadrive

No is not, I already said in the Readme file 4 drivers ago that I will be using the "correct" logical numbering system instead of ATI's screwed number logic .

So instead of 6.1, with me u get 6.01, which is basically the same thing, so when the change from Sep to Oct comes, you will see the normal transition of 6.09 > 6.10, instead of the mathematially incorrect 6.9 > 6.10

Thanks for fixing that "bug" that ATi has

Jun 3, 2006, 02:23 AM	#1
tbessie DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2 Rep Power: 0	Why does Omega driver say "Catalyst Omega 6.05" and not "6.5"? On my XP box, when I bring up the "Advanced" settings for my screen properties for the Omega driver, and go to the "Options" tab, it says "CATALYST Version Omega 6.05". Given that this driver is supposed to be based on Catalyst 6.5, what does the "6.05" correspond to? - Tim

Jun 3, 2006, 02:37 AM	#2
Spyre DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 240 Rep Power: 62	Same thing. __________________ ATI Beta Tester game.AMD.Moderator

Jun 3, 2006, 07:20 AM	#3
Tipstaff HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Real capital of Canada: Torauna Posts: 6,773 Rep Power: 191 System Specs	It's a mistake in the CX2K_RAD_OMEGA.inf file. There are 2 ways to correct this: 1) First go into the C:\Program Files\Radeon Omega Drivers\v3.8.252\2KXP_INF folder. Then open up the CX2K_RAD_OMEGA.inf file with notepad, and do a search for this section: [ati2mtag_SoftwareDeviceSettings] Under that section you will see this listing: HKR,, Catalyst_Version,,"Omega 6.05" Just change that to "Omega 6.50", and reinstall the driver. OR 2) Open up regedit (start, run, regedit), and do a search for Omega 6.05. Then simpley change the listing to Omega 6.50. Personally I would change the listing using regedit, and do the change to the inf file too. If you ever need to reinstall the drivers later then you won't have to do the registry change as well. __________________ Portal: The Flash Version _________________________________ Brain: So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker? Mr. Sackett: The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

Jun 3, 2006, 09:35 AM	#5
Partizan Fun loving criminal Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Slovenia Posts: 1,182 Rep Power: 62 System Specs	I think the label 6.05 is actually correct, because we get driver versions like this: 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07, 6.08, 6.09, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12 That would be more appropriate designation. [EDIT] Temeteus82 was faster. __________________ Live and let live!

Jun 3, 2006, 09:50 AM	#7
Partizan Fun loving criminal Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Slovenia Posts: 1,182 Rep Power: 62 System Specs	Well, he is right, ATI just made more drivers, so x.01-x.12, x.13, x.14... __________________ Live and let live!

Jun 3, 2006, 10:18 AM	#8
Spyre DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 240 Rep Power: 62	If you think there are 13 months in a year I suggest going back to school. Its number of driver release and theres no reason for it to be either 01 or 1 since its just a number. __________________ ATI Beta Tester game.AMD.Moderator

Jun 3, 2006, 11:14 AM	#9
OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,783 Rep Power: 145 System Specs	ATI's driver numbering scheme is 'normally': Y.MM. Y=last digit of the year and MM=month. However, in 2005, they did release one 'extra' driver on 21 December (kinda like a Christmas gift ) which is why we have the 5.13 drivers. __________________ When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

Jun 3, 2006, 11:22 AM	#10
Spyre DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 240 Rep Power: 62	It's nothing to do with the month its just the release number, just so happens that there are usually 12 releases a year of the drivers with rare exceptions. __________________ ATI Beta Tester game.AMD.Moderator